It would be nice

[R_Daneel]

It cannot be substantiated by physical evidence-the hope can be conceived of on our own but it can only be substantiated by grace-as a gift of assurance and conviction-which you don’t believe in.

That is correct. Now how does it differ from wishful thinking? A strong conviction is nice, but one may have a very strong conviction, and that does not make it happen.

 

[davidv]

And the Bible is the one and only evidence that it “happened”.
{snip}

Can you substantiate this claim?

 

[fhansen]

That is correct. Now how does it differ from wishful thinking? A strong conviction is nice, but one may have a very strong conviction, and that does not make it happen.

A gift of assurance or conviction is a gift of knowledge-which is what faith is first and foremost according to Catholic theology. There’s absolutely no way of telling someone who hasn’t walked in my shoes or who would probably feel humiliated by bowing their knee to God and pleading with even a modicum of sincerity for some real need-such as for someone who’s spiraled down into the darkest spiritual hole you can imagine after being molested with little or no hope of finding their way out-and having that prayer answered through a variety of amazing circumstances that changed that persons life.

You cannot know what it means to have walked the path of faith for years and at one point be given an ineffable gift of being in Gods presence, hokey as that may sound to the unitiated (and even this is an experience of faith, in a way, but an enormously expanded one that leaves no doubt who orchestrated it), then later, perhaps, falling back into being a regular wise***, but always coming back to that thirst that leads one on to finding Him.

Faith in a first cause-a cause with the intelligence to create all we see-is not unreasonable. Believing in garden fairies is. That the intelligent “first causer” might have some vested interest in helping man –a truly awesome being in spite of the ugliness we can demonstrate at times-to be more than he is now is also reasonable. Humans are like the Prodigal Son, with a preference to be away from home. Our problem is precisely that we don’t want to believe in God-the source of every good that we have or know.

Faith is different from wishful thinking because it comes from Him-as we turn away from ourselves-just a principle of life.

 

[Sarpedon]

… to have a Catholic equivalent of the Skepic’s Annotated Bible. You know, to list every chapter and verse and have the official, unchangable and infallible Catholic teaching attached to them, saying "this verse is to be taken literally, and that verse must be taken allegorically, and this is the way how the allegory is to be understood. A whole lot of misunderstandings could be avoided. It happens all the time that the defenders of the Bible try to argue on perfectly clear and unambiguous verses that they do not mean what they say. Of course those apologists never add just “how” those verses should be understood. Looks like that despite those 2 thousand years the Church never attempted to undertake such an important task. After all, it would help their own clergy, too. So why is there no such writ? I have my own suspicions.

What do you think?

The Church has already done so, but not in the manner you suggest. Catholic doctrine is laid out in encyclicals and catechisms. These doctrines are not tied directly to scripture quotes as you suggest because they are not fundamentally rooted in scripture. Rather, Catholic teaching is a body of doctrine, and some parts of that teaching has been written down in scripture.

It always strikes me as odd that atheists tend to view Catholicism as being based on the Bible, when in reality the Bible is based in Catholicism. The New Testament was born out of the efforts of the early Christians. Naturally, we assert these Christians to be Catholics, and we have ample historical evidence for the roots of our faith. Therefore, the tenants of Catholicism existed first, before some aspects of those tenants were recorded in scripture.

Since Catholic doctrine came first, Catholics only interpret the Bible in light of Catholic doctrine. This doctrine has been made public since the beginning (I will link compilations of it at the bottom). Therefore, a verse by verse infallible commentary on the Bible is unnecessary- for the infallible rule of doctrine is already established, and that alone is authoritative for Catholic life. The Bible on its own, when not interpreted through the established position of Catholic doctrine, has no authority for Catholic life.

Of course, this is the big difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, and it is largely responsible for the different courses each religion has taken. I think you would agree that the Bible is largely ambiguous in many respects (what does “being born of the spirit” really mean, anyway?). When Protestants rebelled, they based their religion on the belief that private, unguided interpretation of the Bible is the sole authority for Christian life. Of course, the ambiguities of the Bible do not disappear when this happens- and that’s why the movement immediately splintered into Lutherans and Calvinists, Mennonites and Amish, Methodists, Baptists, and Pentecostals, and the other 33,000 denominations- all the result of unguided interpretation of the ambiguous Bible. This lack of doctrinal rule and guidance over interpretation has let the Bible become whatever the Christian wants or thinks it to be.

In contrast, the historical record of Catholicism is much different. The early Church fathers give evidence for simple Catholic beliefs from the beginning, and the historical evidence for the tradition of doctrinal authority from the Bishop of Rome stems from these first centuries as well. This centralized authority over what constitutes legitimate Catholicism enables the faith to remain united around the central principals, which are only roughly laid out in the Bible.

So, in short- it is like this: The tenants of Catholicism came first, and they are amply recorded and made available. The Bible came later and consists of written down parts of these doctrinal tenants, but the doctrinal tenants as protected by Catholicism always remain primary over the manner of presentation of these tenants. Therefore, the Bible should only be interpreted in light of these tenants. A verse by verse interpretation of the Bible is unnecessary, because understanding the doctrinal tenants of Catholicism is sufficient for understanding the Catholic faith and how we understand the Bible. That’s not to say that no aspects of the Bible are commented on- take Genesis and the encyclical Humani Generis for example, but the Bible outside of the doctrinal context of Catholicism is not authoritative for Catholic life.

If you want to study the defined tenants of Catholicism, the following links provide that information:

The most recent Catechism: vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
Collections of encyclicals: papalencyclicals.net/

If you want evidence for the historicity of Catholicism, the following link provides the writings of almost all the Church Fathers:
newadvent.org/fathers/

I’m a little puzzled by your assertion that some controversial verses are perfectly clear and obvious. Most atheists I have encountered tend to argue the opposite- that the Bible is confusing and not obvious, and I would agree with them. Assuming that you do not have a degree in Biblical languages, and cannot read the verses except in translation, and assuming that you do not have extensive background in ancient Jewish and early Christian culture, on what basis can you say that a verse is perfectly obvious? Of course, your average Christian doesn’t have that background either- but that’s why the Bible cannot be authoritative on its own and we need the central Church to interpret it.

 

[Sarpedon]

RDaneel:

According to the Bible it is. Hebrews 11:1 says

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Do you expect us to take you seriously when you give us a translated quote at face value without any context or analysis? If you are able to provide a linguistic analysis in the original language and explain how ancient Jews would have understood the quote at the time it was written, I would be more convinced. Bible thumping can go both ways.

 

[Sarpedon]

So, basically the Church claims that it was founded by Jesus, and the evidence for this is the Bible, which was selected by the Church… I call this process circular, though it is true that Dogbert likes to call it: “there are no loose ends…”.

Some quotes from St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in Against Heresies. He was born between 115-142 AD, so this stems from the very beginning of Christianity. This is not scripture.

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." (3:3:2)

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” (3:3:3)

newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

 

[Sarpedon]

I did not say “dishonest”. I say that the Church is a wuss. Does not dare to say: “Verse X must be taken literally”, and “Verse Y is understood allegorically”. Now, is something is allegorical, then it may have many meanings, it may be subject to interpretation. But if a verse is literal, then there is no ambiguity, it means what is says. And not to say it outright is cowardice.

Um, the Church does this all the time. Take Humanae Vitae- it affirms the Catholic doctrinal tenant that artificial contraception is immoral. Believe me, it takes some guts to say that on the playground. How do people respond to the Church’s position on homosexuality and woman priests? What about abortion?

The Church does not shy away from openly proclaiming its positions. That’s the precise reason why so many people hate the Church. If the Church was some wussy, little religion that just quietly went around its business without saying anything that might offend anyone, then we would not see vitrolic condemnations of the Vatican in newspapers all the time. The Church constantly proclaims its truth, and the world gets enraged at that- but don’t worry, we’re used to it, and we’re not about to slow down.

When was the last time you saw Hinduism make a major statement about human life? When was the last time you saw a raging anti-Hindu article in the New York Times? There has to be something about Catholicism to attract so much attention.

Of course, it’s not only the big moral issues that are proclaimed by the Church. Other doctrinal points, like the assumption, are proclaimed as well. They simply get less press, because they aren’t quite so sensational. I’ve already given you the resources to study the official teachings of Catholicism. If you are interested in very detailed aspects of the faith, I would suggest the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

FYI- it is also stated in Humani Generis that parts of the Genesis do not need to be taken literally. I know the first few chapters are included, but I’m not sure off the top of my head whether the rest is.

 

[Areopagite]

And the Bible is the one and only evidence that it “happened”.

Does that not make it evidence?

In any case, as I said before, the primary reason a Catholic believes that Christ gave the Church divine authority is not because of the Bible but because of the theological virtue of faith. Even if there were more records of Christ granting authority to the Church, it doesn’t really matter. The thing that makes one actually believe such a thing is a supernatural intervention.

Which Bible was written / composed my the Catholic Church.

The one we have now. The Catholic Church was the one who composed the current canon. They said so themselves at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. And at least a hundred years before that, hardly any Catholic was reading the apocryphal works anyway. This is due to the fact that the apocrypha (e.g. the Gnostic Gospels) were so obviously different and divergent from the other ones.

Not in general, no. However the lack of evidence indicates that doubting the event is the proper null-hypothesis.

For someone who does not have faith, I guess I would agree that such a conclusion would be the most reasonable. This is simply because “Christ granting the Church divine authority” cannot be accepted unless one has faith, even if large historical and contemporary tomes recorded the event. You can only accept it if you have been given the faith.

Is there evidence for Atlantis? There is not.

Well, I would definitely say there is. Plato and Egyptian Hieroglyphics both speak of Atlantis. In fact, I believe the Minoan civilization was what was known as Atlantis. Some would disagree, but there you go. There is at least some evidence.

is there evidence that LGM (little green men) visited the Earth? None.

Um, yes I do believe there is plenty of evidence for that (if you mean aliens … and not particularly little green men).

So how to confront a possible allegation that Atlantis “really” existed, or that little green men actually visited the Earth? With doubt. At least I do. Do you differ? Not just in these cases? In general.

Watch this documentary regarding Atlantis:
youtube.com/watch?v=P5jUJh42qYE

As for aliens, just look up all the UFO sightings and Alien abduction cases.

In any case, even if aliens and Atlantis don’t exist, there is evidence to indicate that they might.

If that would be the case, why does not the Cathecism endorse the argument specifically? The usual arguments are collected here: godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm Yes, they are caricatures. But the “real” arguments are not actually better.

Well, those “proofs” curiously left out key premises. How convenient. No, in fact the real arguments are actually much better.

Something the existence of which can be demonstrated. And the success of the demonstration does not hinge upon the a-priori acceptance of the claim.

So, this is your definition of a fact, and you say that data must be facts. And since the supernatural claims of the Catholic faith cannot be demonstrated, they are thus not facts, and thus not data.

Now, you also said that “we must go by the data available to us” … by which you mean, I assume, that we must only believe or accept as true only those things which we have data about. In other words, we must only believe things which we can demonstrate.

However, if I see something happen, and yet cannot demonstrate to another that it happened, should I not believe it happened? Obviously not. I could happen to run into Bruce Willis at the grocery store and yet later on not be able to prove that I did to my friends. Does that change the truth that I saw Bruce Willis, even though I cannot demonstrate it? Of course not. There are plenty of things that I (and you no doubt) cannot demonstrate that I (and you) nonetheless have seen in life and accept as true.

Data does not always need to be demonstrated in order to be data. Some data is available to me that is not available to you and vice versa. Hence, data are not always facts (i.e. not always things that can be demonstrated).

Hence, your attempt to dismiss faith as a kind of legitimate knowledge fails.

 

[Areopagite]

According to the Bible it is. Hebrews 11:1 says

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

This is true. Now, when you emphasized “hoped for” in that description, you assume this automatically makes faith equivalent to “wishful thinking”, right? Now, by wishful thinking, I suppose you mean something like “thinking about something that you want to exist even though you have no evidence for its existence” or something like that, right? (correct me, if not). So, whenever you hope for something, that automatically means that the existence of that “something” is questionable and without evidence?

Well, here’s an example why that’s wrong. I can hope to make it back home when I’m, say, caught in a storm. I might not make it back home. That’s uncertain. What is certain, however, is that I have a home. So, just because I hope to get home, doesn’t mean that there is no evidence for the existence of my home. Likewise, when we hope to see the fullness of the truth of God one day, that doesn’t mean the truths of God (i.e. the truths that the faith tells us about) is without evidence. See my point?

Now, you could say, “Well, you have SEEN your home, and thus you know it exists. But that’s different from the faith, because there are unseen things in the faith that you hope to see.” Right. But that’s not necessarily a problem. Let’s use the example of the Mayflower. They had not seen the New World, but they had been told by reliable sources that it exists. So, when sailing over, they hoped to see it, even though they might not have made it. However, despite the fact that they had not seen it and despite the fact that they were hoping to see it, it is still true that they were right in believing that the New World existed.

This is similar to the Catholic faith. The theological virtue of faith does give you a certain amount of supernatural data such that you are justified in believing certain truths that you have nonetheless not seen for yourself. Faith, for this reason, is called a kind of shadowy knowledge of God. It gives you some knowledge about God, but not all knowledge about God. You hope to have all that knowledge someday, but you are given at least some knowledge such that you have reason to believe that there is such a thing as the Beatific Vision, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, etc. (even though those realities are not yet seen by you … at the very least, not entirely).

Well, I hope that makes sense.

Yes, in some instances, sometimes for someone it may be beneficial. Now your turn. Show me that in every instance, for everyone, every time it is certainly beneficial. And not just “beneficial”, but the benefit outweighs the suffering, and the suffering stopped in the precise moment when the benefit became certain. It is a tall order, but you insisted. The podium is yours, and I am eagerly waiting for the rational (faithless) demonstration.

Oh, heck. I can’t demonstrate that. I already said that this point can only be understood by faith. It cannot be demonstrated. However, you nonetheless claim that it possibly could be true. Hence, the truths of the faith (or at least the one regarding suffering here) might be true because it’s not necessarily against reason. That’s all I can point out.

Yes, I object to that, but my objection is conditional. If you can answer my question above, I will retract my objection.

I’m not quite sure if your objection is rational. It sort of assumes the worst about God (which is tempting to do many times). However, IF God exists and He IS omniscient and omnipotent, then it would surely be in His power to make sure that “in every instance, for everyone, every time it is certainly beneficial” and that “the benefit outweighs the suffering.” Right?

Once again, faith cannot demonstrate the truth that all suffering is meaningful. The only thing that the apologist can do is show that is could be possible (i.e. that the doctrine does not necessarily contradict some truth known from natural reason).

Yes, it is possible. But the allegorical meaning in this case is not relevant. It either confirms the literal meaning (maybe expounds on it), or it contradicts it, in which case it should be discarded.

Why should it be discarded?

Are you against, for example, movies that are based on historical events, and yet do not depict everything that happened exactly as the movie presented it?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Personally, I’d like to see R Daneel respond to tonyrey’s very valid objections to the point he made.

You may not like tonyrey as a sparring partner, so to speak, but you don’t need to necessarily respond to him if you don’t want to, just the points he made.

 

[Slowlearner]

Personally, I’d like to see R Daneel respond to tonyrey’s very valid objections to the point he made.

You may not like tonyrey as a sparring partner, so to speak, but you don’t need to necessarily respond to him if you don’t want to, just the points he made.

I would like to see that too. A response would indicate that r daneel is truly engaged in the very question he himself raised, and not just a sniper, firing shots from afar, but unwilling to engage in true debate.

If you start a thread, you cannot just limit responses to those posters you like. In real life, you can avoid people who annoy you. When you see them coming down the street, you can cross to the other side. But especially on a philosophy forum, how can ideas presented in written from be avoided if one comes here truly seeking to grow and learn?

 

[stenlis]

Let me play the ‘devil’s advocate’ (yeah, the irony) here and answer R Daneel’s question.

There is such a thing called theology - which focuses on the ‘study of god’ and on ‘interpretation of the scripture’. There are many theological scholar’s who’s work is to attempt to do what you ask for - to analyze the scripture and make an interpretation of its parts with an explanation of the reasons for such an interpretation with references to the scriptures and to philosophy. See this paper as an example.

The theologians have been doing this for thousands of years now. See for instance this discourse by Iraneus penned at 180 CE. There are mountains of theological papers now and they do not necessarily agree with each other - there are different streams of thought even within the Catholic church on questions of theodicy and such just like there are differing opinions on the death of Tutanchamon among the historians.

So, there are explanations and discourses on any part of the Bible by now - papers on why there are two genealogies of Jesus, discourses on the trinity verses of 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16, and, as a matter of fact on Isiah 45:7 as well.

However, compiling them into one work would probably produce a 1000 volume set of heavy tomes that you couldn’t read in your lifetime.

And that’s why there is no such thing.

 

[R_Daneel]

Personally, I’d like to see R Daneel respond to tonyrey’s very valid objections to the point he made.

You may not like tonyrey as a sparring partner, so to speak, but you don’t need to necessarily respond to him if you don’t want to, just the points he made.

I would like to see that too. A response would indicate that r daneel is truly engaged in the very question he himself raised, and not just a sniper, firing shots from afar, but unwilling to engage in true debate.

If you start a thread, you cannot just limit responses to those posters you like. In real life, you can avoid people who annoy you. When you see them coming down the street, you can cross to the other side. But especially on a philosophy forum, how can ideas presented in written from be avoided if one comes here truly seeking to grow and learn?

Obviously you did not take the title of this thread seriously. Nowhere have I said of insinuated that the Church is under any obligation to speak clearly. I only said: “It would be nice…”. I also pointed out why I would like it. To wit: to be able to avoid the hide-and-seek game most posters around here engage in.

Also I am not under any obligation to accommodate any and all replies. I do pick and choose whose answers I am going to ponder. Last time I saw, there was no rule to force me to reply. If someone repeatedly makes obnoxious, rude and taunting posts, and keeps coming back with the same nonsense, the only charitable way to deal with that person is to ignore him. I am not allowed to speak my mind (according to the rules of the board!), so I retreat into silence vis-a-vis those persons.

Now to the other posters’ points.

It seems that the authority of Bible is in question. It was said that the Bible is the product of the Catholic Church. No wonder then that the Church uses it and the so-called “sacred tradition” (whatever that is) to establish its own “authority”. There is no external authority to refer to. To use Jesus for that purpose is meaningless, since that claim also comes from the Church. In other words, the authority of the Church is self-proclaimed. Not all Christians subscribe to it. Even some Catholics refuse to follow some of the teachings of the Church.

Are you satisfied now?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Obviously you did not take the title of this thread seriously. Nowhere have I said of insinuated that the Church is under any obligation to speak clearly. I only said: “It would be nice…”. I also pointed out why I would like it. To wit: to be able to avoid the hide-and-seek game most posters around here engage in.

Also I am not under any obligation to accommodate any and all replies. I do pick and choose whose answers I am going to ponder. Last time I saw, there was no rule to force me to reply. If someone repeatedly makes obnoxious, rude and taunting posts, and keeps coming back with the same nonsense, the only charitable way to deal with that person is to ignore him. I am not allowed to speak my mind (according to the rules of the board!), so I retreat into silence vis-a-vis those persons.

Getting a bit defensive here, no?

I only pointed out that there are excellent objections to your original position, and you’re not respondng to them. Nothing more, nothing less. Never did I point out any actual obligation to do so. You’re just weakening your own argument by not responding.

I’ll also be bold and come out and say that while you don’t answer these very clear, well thought out objections I consider your argument frankly untenable and weak.

Sorry.

 

[tonyrey]

Let me play the ‘devil’s advocate’ (yeah, the irony) here and answer R Daneel’s question.

There is such a thing called theology - which focuses on the ‘study of god’ and on ‘interpretation of the scripture’. There are many theological scholar’s who’s work is to attempt to do what you ask for - to analyze the scripture and make an interpretation of its parts with an explanation of the reasons for such an interpretation with references to the scriptures and to philosophy. See this paper as an example.

The theologians have been doing this for thousands of years now. See for instance this discourse by Iraneus penned at 180 CE. There are mountains of theological papers now and they do not necessarily agree with each other - there are different streams of thought even within the Catholic church on questions of theodicy and such just like there are differing opinions on the death of Tutanchamon among the historians.

So, there are explanations and discourses on any part of the Bible by now - papers on why there are two genealogies of Jesus, discourses on the trinity verses of 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16, and, as a matter of fact on Isiah 45:7 as well.

However, compiling them into one work would probably produce a 1000 volume set of heavy tomes that you couldn’t read in your lifetime.

And that’s why there is no such thing.

Indeed! I’m quite sure such an achievement would enhance the appeal of the Catholic Church to the majority of people in the world! Its slogan should be “Confuse in order to convince!”

 

[Slowlearner]

Obviously you did not take the title of this thread seriously. Nowhere have I said of insinuated that the Church is under any obligation to speak clearly. I only said: “It would be nice…”. I also pointed out why I would like it. To wit: to be able to avoid the hide-and-seek game most posters around here engage in.

Also I am not under any obligation to accommodate any and all replies. I do pick and choose whose answers I am going to ponder. Last time I saw, there was no rule to force me to reply. If someone repeatedly makes obnoxious, rude and taunting posts, and keeps coming back with the same nonsense, the only charitable way to deal with that person is to ignore him. I am not allowed to speak my mind (according to the rules of the board!), so I retreat into silence vis-a-vis those persons.

Now to the other posters’ points.

It seems that the authority of Bible is in question. It was said that the Bible is the product of the Catholic Church. No wonder then that the Church uses it and the so-called “sacred tradition” (whatever that is) to establish its own “authority”. There is no external authority to refer to. To use Jesus for that purpose is meaningless, since that claim also comes from the Church. In other words, the authority of the Church is self-proclaimed. Not all Christians subscribe to it. Even some Catholics refuse to follow some of the teachings of the Church.

Are you satisfied now?

Sorry no.

I don’t see anything obnoxious, rude, or taunting in the post made by tonyrey:

You may have missed the points I have made:

1. The Church has never claimed to interpret every single verse of the Scriptures infallibly nor is it necessary.

1. There could not have been any development of doctrine over the centuries in the light of revelations to individuals, theological investigation, philosophical analysis, scientific discoveries and archaeological evidence if the Church had made the mistake of doing what you expect…

1. The fundamental truths of Christianity are far more important than the exegesis of every verse in the Bible.

1. The very fact that there are differing interpretations of certain texts is inevitable given the wide range of topics that are covered and the variety of the authors’ intentions.

1. If there were uniformity of opinion about the meaning of the Scriptures one would be justifying in suspecting not only that the Church is excessively dogmatic and authoritarian but also that the texts were carefully selected to avoid the inclusion of inevitable discrepancies in the eye-witness accounts of historical events.

(In his post, tonyrey used limited bold font, which is not copied, but that appeared to be for purpose of clarity, not to be obnoxious.)

Also, I fail to understand your reference to the title of your thread. Your original post concluded with the following question:

So why is there no such writ? I have my own suspicions.

Tonyrey’s post directly answers the question you asked, so do we have a case of a poster hijacking his own thread?

 

[Sarpedon]

It seems that the authority of Bible is in question. It was said that the Bible is the product of the Catholic Church. No wonder then that the Church uses it and the so-called “sacred tradition” (whatever that is) to establish its own “authority”. There is no external authority to refer to. To use Jesus for that purpose is meaningless, since that claim also comes from the Church. In other words, the authority of the Church is self-proclaimed. Not all Christians subscribe to it. Even some Catholics refuse to follow some of the teachings of the Church.

We don’t use history as an absolute proof for the veracity of Catholicism. Catholicism is proved through philosophy. History lends a helping hand, certainly, to the extent that it can- take my quotes of Irenaeus, for example. We have good historical evidence that the doctrinal course of Christianity followed very Catholic lines from the beginning. That doesn’t prove that Catholicism is true, but it does provide strong supporting evidence for the claims of Catholicism as the heir to the figure called “Jesus.” No one is claiming that that alone is sufficient, because that would be absurd.

Your characterization is wrong because the reasons for accepting the authority of the Church are not ultimately based on the Church’s claims or the Bible. I accept the authority of the Church because I am convinced philosophically that there is a totality of being, and that that being must be good as evidence by the mere existence of lesser being (as an ultimate being, God cannot benefit from us- hence evidence of radical self-gift and radical altruism). A good God would make His will known to men, and hence there must be some structure for doing so. The Catholic Church is the only credible organization that could work as an instrument of God’s communication. Hence, I accept the authority of the Church. Nowhere in this have I relied on the Bible or the Church’s own claims- only philosophic reason, which is available to everyone.

 

[Sarpedon]

Also I am not under any obligation to accommodate any and all replies. I do pick and choose whose answers I am going to ponder. Last time I saw, there was no rule to force me to reply. If someone repeatedly makes obnoxious, rude and taunting posts, and keeps coming back with the same nonsense, the only charitable way to deal with that person is to ignore him. I am not allowed to speak my mind (according to the rules of the board!), so I retreat into silence vis-a-vis those persons.

What about my posts? You haven’t responded to them yet, even though I wrote extensively in response to your query. I would hope I have not come across as arrogant or offensive. If so, please let me know so I can watch out for that.

 

[R_Daneel]

What about my posts? You haven’t responded to them yet, even though I wrote extensively in response to your query. I would hope I have not come across as arrogant or offensive. If so, please let me know so I can watch out for that.

No, you most certainly did not. You are one of those posters whose arguments are always worth to read and ponder, whose style is always pleasant. I did not forget about your posts. The trouble is that I have limited time these days, that there are other conversations I am engaged in, and to compose an answer takes a long time. I will try to get back to you as soon as possible.

By the way, the same applies to Aeropagite, too.